NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE






                  862-7228

- R. T. KELLY · T. F. STAUNCH
 Assistant Director of Labor Relations Labor Relations Counsel
 862-7229 862-7282
                        April 3, 1979


                                          ,3a 3I >~-


Mr. Irwin M. Lieberman °'
 91 Westover Avenue
 Stamford, Connecticut 06902

 Mr. Robert M. O'Brien
 225 Franklin Street
 Boston, Massachusetts 02110

 Mr. Nicholas H. Ztmmas
 Suite 505
 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
 Washington, D. C. 20036

 Gentlemen:

 There are attached copies of Awards Nos. 418 to 420 inclusive dated March 29, 1979, rendered by Special Board of Adjustment No. 605 established by Article VII of the February 7, 1965 National Agreement.

                              Yours very truly,


                          v


cc: Chairman - Employes National
 Conference Committee
 Messrs:
 F,'s~ed J. Kroll (10)
 V.Ole M. Berge
 R. T. Bates
 R. W. Smith
 E. J. Neal
 S. G. Bishop
 M. B. Frye
 W. W. Altus, Jr.
 R. R. Quinn, Jr. (3)
 W. F. Euker
 T. F. Strunck
                                    AWARD N0. 418

                                    Case No. SG-39-E


              SPECIAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT N0. 605


PARTIES) Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
 TO ) and
 DISPUTE ) Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
 QUESTION "(a) The Carrier violated the current Signalmen's
 AT ISSUE: Agreement and Scope, particularly Rules 4-7-8 (a)-11-12-14
 (a)-17-3I (a) (b)-February 7, 1965 Agreement and the Railway
 Labor Act, when on February 23, 1977 at approximately 12:00
 noon, Mr. Reirs was informed by Signal Supervisor Lawrence
 Hanlen to go home, as he was disqualified for not having a
 valid driver's license.
 "(b) That Signal Maintainer M. J. Reirs now be
 compensated for all time lost, which was 32 days at
 Independent Signal Maintainer's rate of pay less unemployment
 benefits Mr. Eeirs may have received. (Total hours 256)"

 OPINION The Claimant herein was a protected employee and held a
 OF BOARD: regular assignment as a Signal Maintainer at Washington, PA.
 As a result of a severe snow storm the positions held by
 Claimant and other Signal employees were abolished. His position was
 abolished at the close of business of February 10, 1977. Subsequently
 Claimant exercised his displacement rights on an independent Signal
 Maintainer Position at Wheeling, West Virginia effective February 22, 1977.
 He worked that position until noon, February 23, 1977 at which time he was
 sent home by his Signal Supervisor. He was sent home on the basis of
 disqualification on the position for not possessing a Motor Operator's
 License. Possession of such license was an integral part of the position
 which involved driving a company vehicle. Claimant's former position of
 Signal Maintainer was restored and he was awarded the position as the senior
 applicant and began to work on that position on April 11, 1977. A secondary
 aspect of this dispute relates to whether or not he was properly held off the
 position for the period from April 4, 1977 until April 11, 1977. It will not
 be necessary to deal with that aspect of the dispute.

 Both Carrier and Petitioner agree that Claimant could have worked positions held by junior employees on his home seniority district during the claim period. He apparently chose not to do so.

 Petitioner asserts that Claimant used his seniority to obtain a position and was denied the right to do so by Carrier. Since he was ready, willing and able to work, Carrier had no right not to afford him the privileges which were afforded to less senior employees.

 The Carrier states that the remedy sought by Petitioner is one not to be found under the February 7, 1965 Agreement. Specifically, Carrier points out that the organization concedes that Claimant was protected in the Assistant Maintainer's class but claimed compensation for him for thirty-two
 AWW K t hle
 6100 Nn, SG-39-E

 days at the independent Signal Maintainers rate of pay. Further Carrier suggests that the sole issue handled on the property was the validity of the Carrier's disqualification of claimant because of his inability to handle the duties of the position. Carrier states that the removal of Claimant from a position for which he was not qualified does not constitute a violation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement, There were other positions available to claimant on his seniority district during the claim period in which he could have worked. For example, there was such a position within thirty miles from his residence which did not have a motor vehicle assigned as a integral aspect of the job. Carrier argues that the failure of Claimant to work was a result of his own actions and not those of the Carrier.

 Petitioner, in support of their position, cites a number of Awards of this Hoard including, for example, No, 303. Those Awards are all distinguishable from the facts herein in that unlike this case in those disputes, the Claimants apparently had done all that could have been done to place themselves on another position and they lost their positions as a result of Carrier's actions, not their own.

 An examination of the question at issue herein indicates that the sole question raised is that of Claimant's disqualification for not having a valid driver's license. We find no basis or provisions in the February 7, 1965 Agreement which would restrict Carrier's requirement that an independent Signal Maintainer possess a motor vehicle license where the particular position requires one. It follows therefore that the disqualification could not have been a violation of the February 7, 1965 Agreement. The facts indicate that Claimant could have secured a position which he was able to perform had he so desired. Thus Carrier was not at fault for his loss of protection during the claim period.

 AWARD

 The questions are answered in the negative.

    Lieberman

Neutral Member

 Dated: March ~J, 1979